Worldcoin

Digital Identity + Cryptocurrency

A project combining biometric identity verification via iris-scanning devices with a cryptocurrency token (WLD), aiming to create a global proof-of-personhood identity network.

Type	Digital Identity + Cryptocurrency
Region	Global
Status	Active
Links	Website

M69 Score

M69 Alignment2.3

Minimally aligned

1.02.03.04.05.0

Monetary Sovereignty2.3

Issuance (3x) + Stability (2x) + Fiat Indep. (2x)

Civilizational Durability2.0

Sovereignty + Governance + Resilience

Universal Adoption2.7

Traction (2x) + Inclusivity

Iss Mod3x

2.2

Stability2x

1.2

Fia Ind & Int2x

3.4

Traction2x

2.9

Sovereignty

2.2

Governance

1.8

Resilience

2.1

Inclusivity

2.3

Scored against the Money2069 Manifesto — see methodology. Higher = more aligned.

Key Findings

Spending Power Stability is catastrophically weak (1.2)WLD is a freely-floating speculative token with zero stability mechanism, no purchasing power target, and a demonstrated 97%+ price decline from all-time high to all-time low, making it fundamentally unsuitable as a value-preserving medium of exchange.

The biometric iris-scanning requirement is the project's defining structural tension with M69 valuesit creates the most invasive identity/surveillance relationship of any monetary project while simultaneously pursuing "inclusivity" and "universal access," a contradiction that regulators in 8+ countries have actively challenged through bans and enforcement actions.

Fiat Independence scores surprisingly well (3.4)because WLD is genuinely crypto-native with its own unit of account and zero fiat reserves -- but this "independence" comes without any stability anchor, making it independence without utility as money.

Governance is effectively centralized (1.8)the World Foundation's 4-of-6 multisig controls all critical functions with no time-locks on contract upgrades, no binding community governance, and the experimental World Vote pilot is explicitly non-binding, while the "advancing decentralization" whitepaper remains aspirational rather than implemented.

The big takeaway: Worldcoin is a massive-scale identity infrastructure project with a token attached, not a monetary system aligned with M69 values.Its strength is identity verification and user acquisition, but as money it fails on nearly every M69 dimension -- no stability, no elasticity, no privacy, centralized governance, and a biometric requirement that inverts the sovereignty and inclusivity ideals at the heart of the M69 vision. Investors or partners seeking M69-aligned monetary infrastructure will find very little here; those seeking proof-of-humanness infrastructure will find significant traction.

Detailed Rating Breakdown

Framework v0.2-alpha · Rated 2026-04-12

Worldcoin, rebranded as "World" or "World Network" in October 2024, is a project by Tools for Humanity (co-founded by Sam Altman and Alex Blania) that uses iris-scanning biometric Orbs to verify unique human identity (World ID), then distributes WLD tokens to verified users. The project launched its WLD token on July 24, 2023, with a total supply cap of 10 billion tokens, 75% allocated to the community and 25% to the team, investors, and reserves. It operates World Chain, an Ethereum Layer 2 built on the OP Stack, and has grown to over 38 million registered users with approximately 12-15 million Orb-verified World IDs across 23+ countries. The World Foundation manages a 4-of-6 multisig wallet controlling smart contracts. From an M69 alignment perspective, Worldcoin's strongest area is Traction -- the project has achieved massive user growth, significant media coverage, substantial venture backing (a16z, Bain Capital, Khosla Ventures), and an increasingly active Mini Apps ecosystem with over 100 million WLD transacted. Its cultural narrative around "proof of humanness" in the age of AI is compelling and drives real engagement. However, the project's Monetary Sovereignty pillar is severely weak: WLD is a volatile speculative token with no spending power stability mechanism, no non-fiat benchmark, and a price history showing a decline from an all-time high of $11.74 to under $0.40 -- a 97% drop. The token has no intrinsic stability design whatsoever. The project's most fundamental tension with M69 values lies in its identity architecture. The iris-scanning Orb requirement creates the most invasive biometric surveillance relationship of any monetary project in the crypto ecosystem -- directly contradicting M69's commandments on sovereignty, privacy, and inclusivity. Multiple countries (Brazil, Colombia, Kenya, Thailand, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, South Korea) have banned, suspended, or fined the project over biometric data violations. The requirement to scan one's iris at a physical Orb location to fully participate creates both surveillance risk and access barriers that structurally undermine the inclusivity and privacy goals central to the M69 vision.

Issuance Model3x

2.2

Code	Question	Score
IM-01	Is issuance permissionless?Restricted. New WLD can only be minted by the contract owner (World Foundation 4-of-6 multisig) or the designated minter address after the inflation unlock period. Users cannot mint WLD; they can only claim pre-allocated grants after iris verification via Orb. The initial supply was minted in a one-time owner action. This is a single-issuer model with restricted minting authority. [1][2]	1
IM-02	Is new supply created through debt?WLD is not created through debt. Tokens are minted and distributed as grants to verified humans -- no borrowing, collateral lockup, or lending is involved. The issuance mechanism is fundamentally a free distribution (airdrop) to verified unique humans. This is debt-free issuance. [1][2]	5
IM-03	Is issuance tied to measurable real-world economic activity?Issuance is not tied to any real-world economic index. WLD supply follows a fixed schedule: 10B cap, daily unlocks, with grants distributed per-capita to verified humans. There is no oracle, no price index, no economic signal driving issuance decisions. Supply is pre-determined by the tokenomics schedule, not responsive to economic conditions. [1][2]	1
IM-04	Does the issuance model have a supply cap or hard ceiling?10B hard cap enforced by smart contract for 15 years. After 15 years, governance may implement up to 1.5% annual inflation. The cap is fixed with no elasticity -- supply does not respond to economic demand or contraction. This is a fixed-supply model with a future governance-controlled inflation option. [1][2]	2
IM-05	Can supply contract (burn/redemption) as well as expand?No contraction mechanism exists in the WLD token contract. There is no burn function, no redemption mechanism, and no way to reduce supply. The WLD contract only allows minting (expansion). Supply is monotonically increasing. Users can sell tokens on secondary markets, but this does not reduce total supply. [1][2]	2

Spending Power Stability2x

1.2

Code	Question	Score
SPS-01	What mechanism does the protocol use to target spending power stability?No stability mechanism exists. WLD is a freely-floating speculative token with no peg, no rebase, no rate adjustment, and no algorithmic stabilization. Price is entirely determined by secondary market supply and demand. The per-capita issuance to verified humans does scale with the number of active participants, but this is a fixed grant schedule, not a reactive supply adjustment mechanism. [1][2]	1
SPS-02	What basket or benchmark is used to measure spending power?No basket or benchmark. WLD has no purchasing power target. It is not pegged to any fiat currency, commodity index, or real-economy basket. The token's value floats freely based on speculative demand. [1][2]	1
SPS-03	How transparent and verifiable is the stability measurement?No stability measurement exists. The token supply schedule is transparent and on-chain, but there is no stability target to measure against. [1]	1
SPS-04	What is the protocol's historical deviation from its stability target?No stability target exists. WLD price has been extremely volatile: launched around $2-3, surged to an all-time high of $11.74, then collapsed to an all-time low of approximately $0.24 by March 2026 -- a 97%+ decline from peak. This represents catastrophic volatility incompatible with any notion of spending power stability. [1][2]	1
SPS-05	Does the protocol distinguish between short-term volatility and long-term purchasing power drift?No distinction. Neither short-term volatility dampening nor long-term purchasing power anchoring is part of the protocol design. WLD is designed as a utility/governance token, not as a medium of exchange with stable purchasing power. [1]	1
SPS-06	Is the stability mechanism accessible globally?WLD token is globally accessible on multiple chains, but full participation in the Worldcoin ecosystem requires biometric verification through Orb devices, which have limited geographic availability (23+ countries). The stability mechanism (or lack thereof) is partially accessible -- token trading is global but ecosystem participation faces practical barriers. [1]	3

Fiat Independence & Interoperability2x

3.4

Code	Question	Score
FI-01	What is the protocol's unit of account?WLD is its own unit of account, fully sovereign and not pegged to any fiat currency. Grants are denominated in WLD amounts (e.g., 25 WLD genesis grant). Mini Apps transact in WLD. The unit of account is independently defined. [1][2]	5
FI-02	What is the fiat composition of the protocol's collateral or reserves?WLD has no collateral or reserves backing it. The token is not asset-backed -- it is a freely-issued grant token with no reserve requirement. The World Foundation treasury holds WLD tokens and has conducted sales to VCs (a16z, Bain Capital). Since there is no reserve mechanism, fiat composition is not applicable. The token is crypto-native with zero fiat backing, but also zero backing of any kind. [1][2]	5
FI-03	Does the protocol depend on fiat banking infrastructure to function?The core protocol (World Chain, WLD distribution, World ID) operates without fiat banking. However, fiat on-ramps (ZeroHash integration in World App) exist for user convenience. The project's operational company, Tools for Humanity, requires banking for corporate operations and VC fundraising. Core protocol can function without banks. [1][2]	4
FI-04	Are the protocol's price feeds and oracles fiat-denominated?WLD has no price feeds or oracles integrated into its core protocol for monetary operations (no stability mechanism requires them). Price feeds exist on exchanges, all fiat-denominated (WLD/USD). The protocol itself does not consume oracle data for core functions. [1]	3
FI-05	What happens to the protocol if the primary fiat currency it references collapses or depegs?WLD does not reference any fiat currency in its core protocol design. A fiat collapse would affect on-ramp liquidity and the USD-denominated market price but not the protocol's ability to distribute WLD to verified humans or operate World Chain. The protocol is structurally resilient to fiat failure at the protocol level, though the economic value of WLD (priced in fiat) would be affected. [1][2]	4
FI-06	Does the project have a credible transition path from fiat-dominated adoption to fiat-independent operation?No explicit fiat transition plan exists because WLD was never fiat-pegged to begin with. The project does not have a fiat dependency to transition away from. However, real-world adoption still heavily depends on fiat-denominated value perception. The Mini Apps ecosystem and World ID fees (payable in WLD) represent steps toward WLD-denominated economic activity, but there is no documented transition plan. [1][2]	2
FI-07	Can local or sectoral currencies be denominated in or settle against this currency?No native support for local currency issuance. World Chain is a general-purpose L2 that could theoretically host token contracts, but there is no protocol-level feature for local currency composability or settlement against WLD. No local currencies have been built on the standard. [1][2]	1
FI-08	Does the protocol define open standards for interoperability with other monetary systems?No protocol-specific monetary interoperability standard exists. Interoperability is via generic crypto infrastructure (bridges to Ethereum, Superchain compatibility). World Chain is part of the OP Superchain, enabling cross-chain communication with other OP Stack chains, but this is generic L2 infrastructure, not a monetary interoperability protocol. [1][2]	3

Traction2x

2.9

Code	Question	Score
TR-01	Is the project still active?Fully active, growing, and operational. World Chain launched mainnet in November 2024. Active development continues with Mini Apps ecosystem, World App updates, Orb deployments across 23+ countries, and ongoing VC fundraising ($135M in May 2025, $250M treasury deal in September 2025). [1][2]	5
TR-02	How long has the project been in existence?WLD token launched July 24, 2023. Tools for Humanity founded in 2019. Project has been in existence for approximately 2.5-3 years since public launch, ~7 years since company founding. Using the protocol launch date: 2-5 years. [1][2]	3
TR-03	How many active users does the project have?Over 38 million registered users, 12-15 million Orb-verified World IDs. However, daily active users are approximately 100,000 -- indicating a massive gap between signups and active engagement. The 100K daily active participants metric is the relevant measure for active users, falling in the 10K-100K range. [1][2]	3
TR-04	How many businesses or organizations accept the project's currency?No evidence of traditional merchant adoption where businesses accept WLD as payment for goods and services. The Mini Apps ecosystem has 500+ apps, some enabling WLD transactions, but these are primarily within the World App ecosystem, not independent merchants pricing goods in WLD. No external merchant adoption data found. [1]	1
TR-05	Is the currency used as a unit of account?WLD is used as a unit of account within the World App Mini Apps ecosystem (100M+ WLD transacted) and for World ID fees. Developer rewards are denominated in WLD. However, outside the closed ecosystem, WLD is never used as a unit of account -- it is always quoted in fiat equivalents. Internal ecosystem use only. [1][2]	2
TR-06	Is the founder or core team still actively working on the project?Sam Altman (Chairman of Tools for Humanity) and Alex Blania (CEO of Tools for Humanity) remain actively involved. Large development team with active GitHub contributions. Strong leadership continuity. [1][2]	5
TR-07	What partner organizations or institutions support or integrate the project?Significant institutional backing: a16z, Bain Capital Crypto, Khosla Ventures, Blockchain Capital, Pantera, Brevan Howard, Kraken, FalconX. Alchemy as RaaS provider. ZeroHash for payment infrastructure. Part of OP Superchain. Multiple institutional partners across sectors. [1][2]	5
TR-08	Is the project covered or recognized by credible external sources?Extensive media coverage: TIME, CoinDesk, Financial Times, major policy discussions. Academic attention from privacy researchers and data protection authorities. Covered in policy discussions by multiple national regulators. Featured at major conferences (IAPP GPS 2025). [1][2]	5
TR-09	Is adoption organic -- not dependent on subsidies, incentives, or mandates?Adoption is heavily incentive-driven. Users receive free WLD tokens (25 WLD genesis grant) for iris verification -- this is the primary adoption driver. Developer rewards (100K+ per week in WLD) subsidize Mini App ecosystem. The token grant is the core user acquisition mechanism. Little evidence of organic demand beyond the financial incentive. [1][2]	2
TR-10	What is the growth trend over the past 12 months?User growth has been strong: from approximately 10M to 38M+ users over 2025. However, WLD token price has declined sharply (from ~$1-2 to ~$0.30-0.40), and daily active users remain low relative to total signups. Mixed signals: user acquisition up, token value and active engagement declining. [1][2]	3
TR-11	Does the project have a coherent narrative and cultural identity that drives long-term commitment?Strong founding narrative: "proof of humanness" in the age of AI, UBI for the AI era, verifying every human on earth. Clear mission with cultural artifacts (the Orb as symbol, "World ID" branding). However, community engagement is largely financial/transactional -- users come for free tokens, not ideological commitment. The narrative resonates more with investors and tech media than with a grassroots movement. [1][2]	3

Sovereignty

2.2

Code	Question	Score
SO-01	Can any single entity shut down the project?Tools for Humanity / World Foundation controls critical infrastructure. The World Foundation operates a 4-of-6 multisig controlling smart contracts. L2BEAT notes: "Funds can be stolen if a contract receives a malicious code upgrade. There is no delay on code upgrades." Only whitelisted proposers can publish state roots. The Foundation could effectively shut down World Chain operations. [1][2]	2
SO-02	Is the project's core infrastructure permissionless and self-hostable?World Chain is open-source (GitHub). The WLD token contract is open-source. The World ID protocol has open-source components. However, the Orb hardware for biometric verification is proprietary and manufactured exclusively by Tools for Humanity. The sequencer and state proposer roles are restricted. Mixed: open-source code but critical proprietary hardware dependency. [1][2]	3
SO-03	Is the project subject to the jurisdiction of a single nation-state?Tools for Humanity is incorporated in the US (San Francisco) and Germany. The World Foundation is based in the Cayman Islands. Orb operations span 23+ countries. However, regulatory actions in individual countries have successfully shut down operations locally (Kenya, Brazil, Colombia, Thailand, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia). Multi-jurisdictional by design but highly vulnerable to individual country actions. [1][2]	3
SO-04	Does the project control or custody user funds?WLD tokens are held in user wallets (World App is non-custodial). Users control their own keys. However, the World App itself manages key infrastructure, and the grant claim process is mediated through the app. Non-custodial by default with the app as primary interface. [1][2]	4
SO-05	Is the project resilient to key-person risk?Heavily associated with Sam Altman (also CEO of OpenAI). Alex Blania is CEO of Tools for Humanity. While the team is large, the project's identity, fundraising ability, and public credibility are deeply tied to Altman's name and reputation. His dual role at OpenAI creates additional complexity. Significant key-person risk concentrated in 1-2 individuals. [1][2]	2
SO-06	Does the project depend on any third-party service that could be revoked?Critical dependencies: Ethereum L1 for data availability and settlement, OP Stack framework, Alchemy as RaaS provider, proprietary Orb hardware manufacturing. L2BEAT identifies: sequencer is centralized with no tested fallback. World Chain depends on Ethereum infrastructure. Multiple third-party dependencies with varying migration difficulty. [1][2]	2
SO-07	Can the project be censored -- can specific users or transactions be blocked?The WLD token contract does not contain freeze or blacklist functions. However, World Chain's sequencer is centralized (whitelisted proposers only), meaning transaction inclusion can be censored at the L2 level. The World App could restrict access. L2BEAT notes centralized sequencer and proposer risks. Censorship is technically feasible via the centralized sequencer. [1][2]	2
SO-08	Does the protocol protect transaction privacy as a monetary right?WLD transactions on World Chain are pseudonymous (standard blockchain transparency). However, the Orb verification process collects iris biometric data, creating a uniquely invasive identity-to-wallet linkage. Even with SMPC (secure multi-party computation) for iris code storage, the system creates a biometric surveillance relationship. Multiple regulators have found inadequate privacy protections. This is among the most privacy-invasive monetary systems in existence due to the biometric requirement. [1][2][3]	1
SO-09	Does the technology enforce the project's monetary rules such that governance cannot silently override them?The WLD token contract enforces the 10B supply cap and inflation schedule in code. However, L2BEAT reports: "Funds can be stolen if a contract receives a malicious code upgrade. There is no delay on code upgrades." The 4-of-6 multisig can upgrade contracts without time-lock or public review period. This means monetary rules can be silently overridden by the multisig. Limited technological enforcement. [1][2]	2

Governance

1.8

Code	Question	Score
GO-01	How are decisions about the project made?Decisions are made by Tools for Humanity (the development company) and the World Foundation. The World Vote Mini App launched as an experimental pilot for community input, but voting is "strictly experimental and not an initiation of any formal onchain governance." The Foundation's Board of Directors makes binding decisions. Governance is informal with ad-hoc community consultation. [1][2]	2
GO-02	Who has voting or decision-making power, and how is that power distributed?Decision power is held by the World Foundation's 4-of-6 multisig. The Foundation's Board of Directors controls governance. While the experimental World Vote allows one-person-one-vote for non-binding proposals, actual power resides with a small group of insiders. No meaningful community decision-making power exists yet. [1][2]	2
GO-03	Is the governance process -- and the monetary mechanism itself -- transparent and publicly auditable?The WLD smart contract is open-source and on-chain. Token distribution schedules are publicly documented. However, Foundation decision-making is opaque -- no public records of Board deliberations, no on-chain governance trail for operational decisions. Monetary mechanism is partially verifiable (token contract is open) but governance deliberation is behind closed doors. [1][2]	2
GO-04	Can governance be captured by a small group or hostile actor?Governance is already captured by insiders. The World Foundation and Tools for Humanity control all meaningful decisions. The 4-of-6 multisig is controlled by known insiders. No external governance mechanism exists to prevent capture -- it is the current state. [1][2]	1
GO-05	How are upgrades and changes to the protocol or project proposed and executed?L2BEAT notes: contracts can be upgraded with no delay. The multisig can push upgrades without community vote, time-lock, or veto mechanism. The experimental World Vote exists but is non-binding. Upgrades are pushed without meaningful community input. [1]	1
GO-06	Is there a separation between governance over monetary policy and governance over operational decisions?No separation exists. The same Foundation multisig controls both monetary parameters (minter address, inflation settings) and operational decisions (contract upgrades, ecosystem development). All decisions flow through the same centralized authority. [1][2]	1
GO-07	Does the project have a constitution, charter, or set of immutable principles?The World whitepaper articulates principles around "individual empowerment," "proof of humanness," and decentralization. However, these are aspirational documents, not constitutionally protected principles. No on-chain or legally binding charter exists. The Foundation can deviate from stated principles without constraint. [1][2]	2
GO-08	Can the project's issuance rules be changed, and are monetary policy changes subject to stronger constraints than operational changes?The 10B supply cap is enforced by the smart contract for 15 years. However, the multisig owner can set the minter address and change inflation parameters after the unlock period. L2BEAT confirms no time-lock on contract upgrades. Issuance rules are contract-enforced but the contract itself can be upgraded without delay by the multisig. Moderate protection undermined by upgrade authority. [1][2]	3

Resilience

2.1

Code	Question	Score
RE-01	Has the project survived a major crisis or adversarial event?The project has faced multiple regulatory bans and suspensions (Brazil, Colombia, Kenya, Thailand, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, South Korea) but has continued operating in other jurisdictions. The WLD token experienced a 97%+ price decline but the protocol remains functional. The project survived significant adversarial regulatory pressure without protocol failure, though it was forced to cease operations in multiple countries. [1][2]	3
RE-02	Does the project have redundancy in its critical infrastructure?World Chain runs on the OP Stack with Ethereum as data availability layer. The sequencer is centralized with no proven fallback. Orb manufacturing is a single point of failure (only TFH manufactures them). World App is the primary user interface with no alternatives. Limited redundancy across critical components. [1][2]	2
RE-03	Can the project recover from a catastrophic failure?WLD token contract is on Ethereum (immutable). World Chain data is posted to Ethereum. Open-source code could be re-deployed. However, the biometric database (iris codes via SMPC) and the Orb hardware network would be extremely difficult to reconstruct. Recovery of the identity layer would require re-scanning millions of users. Partial recovery possible for the financial layer; identity layer recovery is extremely difficult. [1][2]	2
RE-04	Is the project's design simple enough to be maintained and understood long-term?The system is highly complex: biometric hardware (Orbs), secure multi-party computation for iris codes, an L2 blockchain, a custom wallet app, a token distribution system, and an identity verification protocol. Understanding the full stack requires deep expertise across hardware, cryptography, blockchain, and biometrics. Very high complexity with many interacting components. [1][2]	2
RE-05	Is the project dependent on a specific technology that could become obsolete?Built on Ethereum and the OP Stack -- both major, widely-supported platforms. However, the Orb hardware and iris-scanning technology are highly specific. If biometric verification approaches change or the Orb hardware becomes unsupportable, the core identity mechanism would need fundamental redesign. Technology risk concentrated in the biometric hardware layer. [1][2]	3
RE-06	How does the project handle economic stress (bank runs, liquidity crises, collateral crashes, inflation/deflation shocks)?WLD has no economic stress mechanisms. There are no circuit breakers, no dynamic collateral ratios (no collateral at all), no orderly wind-down procedures. The token's 97%+ price decline from ATH demonstrates no resilience to economic stress. The protocol continues distributing tokens regardless of price, which could accelerate decline during stress. No stress mechanisms exist. [1][2]	1
RE-07	Does the project have sustainable funding for long-term maintenance?Well-funded: $240M+ total VC funding, $135M token sale in May 2025, $250M treasury deal in September 2025. Tools for Humanity as a well-capitalized company. World ID fees provide a potential revenue model. The large token treasury provides years of runway. Sustainable funding model with multiple revenue paths. [1][2][3]	4
RE-08	Can the system operate across extreme latency, disconnected networks, and multi-century timescales?World Chain requires real-time connectivity to Ethereum for settlement and data availability. The Orb verification requires internet connectivity. No consideration of high-latency or disconnected operation in the design. Tightly coupled to current internet infrastructure. [1][2]	2
RE-09	Is the system designed for a world where AI agents are primary economic actors?Paradoxically, World ID is specifically designed to prevent AI agents from participating -- the entire "proof of humanness" premise is anti-bot. The system requires iris biometric verification that explicitly excludes non-human participants. This directly contradicts the M69 vision of AI-compatible monetary systems. While the underlying smart contracts are programmable, the identity layer is explicitly human-only. [1][2]	1

Inclusivity

2.3

Code	Question	Score
IN-01	Can anyone in the world participate regardless of nationality, wealth, or status?Open in principle but practically restricted. Requires physical access to an Orb scanning location (only 1,500+ Orbs across 23 countries). Banned or suspended in Brazil, Colombia, Kenya, Thailand, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, South Korea. Users in countries without Orb access cannot fully participate. The physical Orb requirement creates a significant access barrier. Populations in rural areas, conflict zones, or countries where the project is banned are excluded. [1][2][3]	2
IN-02	What is the minimum cost to start using the project?Zero financial cost for verified users: free gas on World Chain, free WLD grant (25 WLD) upon verification. However, requires physical travel to an Orb location, which may involve transportation costs. The financial cost is near-zero but the physical access requirement creates hidden costs. [1][2]	4
IN-03	Does the project actively serve underbanked or financially excluded populations?The UBI narrative targets financially excluded populations, and significant adoption has occurred in Global South countries (Kenya, Nigeria, Argentina, Chile). The free token distribution provides real value to low-income users. However, the Orb requirement and regulatory bans limit reach. Active deployment in underbanked communities but with significant access barriers. [1][2]	3
IN-04	Does the project distribute economic benefits -- including seigniorage -- broadly, or concentrate them among insiders?75% of WLD allocated to the community, 25% to TFH team/investors. However, the team/investor allocation (25% of 10B = 2.5B tokens) represents massive insider value at any significant token price. Insiders received tokens at $0 cost with vesting. VCs purchased at deep discounts. The 75/25 split is better than many crypto projects but the 25% insider allocation is still substantial. Early insiders (a16z, Khosla) received preferential terms. [1][2][3]	2
IN-05	Does the project treat all participants equally under the same rules?Structural inequality exists: Orb-verified users get free gas and larger grants vs. non-verified users. Team/investors received tokens with preferential terms (discounted price, guaranteed allocation). The biometric tier system (verified vs. unverified) creates a two-class system within the ecosystem. Different rules for insiders vs. users and verified vs. unverified participants. [1][2]	2
IN-06	Does the project require identity documentation or surveillance to participate?Full participation requires iris biometric scanning -- the most invasive form of identity verification in the crypto ecosystem. The Orb captures a high-resolution iris image that is processed into an iris code. While SMPC is used for storage, the collection itself creates a surveillance relationship. Multiple data protection authorities have found the consent process inadequate. This is comprehensive biometric surveillance, scoring at the maximum invasiveness level. [1][2][3]	1
IN-07	Does the project have mechanisms to prevent wealth concentration over time?Per-capita UBI distribution (equal grants per verified human) is a structural anti-concentration mechanism. The one-person-one-account design prevents single entities from accumulating disproportionate grants. However, secondary market trading allows unlimited accumulation, and insider token allocations concentrate significant value. The UBI mechanism discourages concentration but market dynamics and insider allocations work against it. [1][2]	3

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Worldcoin (World Network) and what problem does it solve?

How is money created in Worldcoin (World Network)?

Restricted. New WLD can only be minted by the contract owner (World Foundation 4-of-6 multisig) or the designated minter address after the inflation unlock period. Users cannot mint WLD; they can only claim pre-allocated grants after iris verification via Orb.

How does Worldcoin (World Network) maintain stable spending power?

No stability mechanism exists. WLD is a freely-floating speculative token with no peg, no rebase, no rate adjustment, and no algorithmic stabilization. Price is entirely determined by secondary market supply and demand.

Is Worldcoin (World Network) independent from fiat currencies?

WLD is its own unit of account, fully sovereign and not pegged to any fiat currency. Grants are denominated in WLD amounts (e.g., 25 WLD genesis grant). Mini Apps transact in WLD.

Who controls Worldcoin (World Network) and can it be shut down?

Tools for Humanity / World Foundation controls critical infrastructure. The World Foundation operates a 4-of-6 multisig controlling smart contracts. L2BEAT notes: "Funds can be stolen if a contract receives a malicious code upgrade.

How widely adopted is Worldcoin (World Network) today?

Over 38 million registered users, 12-15 million Orb-verified World IDs. However, daily active users are approximately 100,000 -- indicating a massive gap between signups and active engagement. The 100K daily active participants metric is the relevant measure for active users, falling in the 10K-100K range.

Is Worldcoin (World Network) still active and growing?

Fully active, growing, and operational. World Chain launched mainnet in November 2024. Active development continues with Mini Apps ecosystem, World App updates, Orb deployments across 23+ countries, and ongoing VC fundraising ($135M in May 2025, $250M treasury deal in September 2025).

What are the main risks or weaknesses of Worldcoin (World Network)?

Weakest category: Spending Power Stability (1.2).

What makes Worldcoin (World Network) unique from an M69 perspective?

Strongest category: Fiat Independence (3.4).

How is Worldcoin (World Network)'s M69 Score calculated?

Worldcoin (World Network) scores 2.3/5.0 overall. Pillar scores: Monetary Sovereignty 2.3, Civilizational Durability 2.0, Universal Adoption 2.7. Strongest: Fiat Independence (3.4). Weakest: Spending Power Stability (1.2).